Lawyers love to donate

September 15, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Lawyers like to give money to campaigns. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, lawyers and the legal industry in Indiana are the second-leading industry in donations to political campaigns. In 2008, the legal community has donated nearly $1 million. Retirees in Indiana lead the state in donations – go figure.

Our state’s top contributors include Baker & Daniels, Barnes & Thornburg, and Ice Miller. Those three firms’ political action groups and attorneys have collectively donated $371,361 to local and national campaigns, and other political action groups.

Data from the Center for Responsive Politics also reveals how much money lawyers and law firms nationwide have donated to the presidential candidates. Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has received $8 million; Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama has received three times that amount. Taking a look at long-term donations to political parties by lawyers and law firms, the amount of donations to the Democratic Party has consistently been more than donations to the Republican Party by nearly three-to-one.

Why are Democrats more often on the receiving end of donations from attorneys and law firms instead of Republicans? Are Democratic attorneys more likely to donate than Republicans to political parties or is it more attorneys agree with the ideas of the Democratic Party?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT